Adolfo Masadiego-Alva v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 14, 2023
• Docket: 21-2208
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2208 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2208

ADOLFO MASADIEGO-ALVA, a/k/a Darling Eduardo Merida Merida,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: June 23, 2022 Decided: September 14, 2023

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Alexander J. Lutz, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2208 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Adolfo Masadiego-Alva, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record

and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the

administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence

supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We

further conclude, upon de novo review of the questions of law raised by Masadiego-Alva,

that the denial of relief was not manifestly contrary to law. See Crespin-Valladares v.

Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C)). Accordingly,

we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED